Our Lord of the Rings

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz "

<fuzzie_wuz>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

<dan330033>

> > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Direct knowing is all that matters.

> > > >

> > > > I posted those quotes only to show there was more to Niz's

> > teachings,

> > > > and one needs to take in the whole of his thought, not bits

> > > > that fit with what one believes.

> > > >

> > > > My understanding is that iam is not a landing place, is not

> > > > worth trying to make into an ultimacy.

> > > >

> > > > Allow it to evaporate between one's fingers, and allow the

> > > > fingers to evaporate. Now " allowing " evaporates as well.

> > > >

> > > > No affirmation, no negation *here* -- yet the world of

> > > > communication, affirmations and negations, relationships,

> > > > spins on in its spinning -- as *this* having no negating

> > > > or affirming quality won't negate the mental-emotionally

> > > > wrought world of relating and communicating, nor the

> > > > felt sense of being or iamness.

> > > >

> > > > Yet, this instant all evaporates.

> > > >

> > > > As Niz said, it all goes, and even being aware of the going -

> > goes.

> > > >

> > > > Now, nothing can be said about *this* ...

> > > >

> > > > ;-)

> > > >

> > > > -- Dan

> > >

> > >

> > > Alright, Dan:

> > >

> > > " Nothing can be said about *this*... " But, I bet you say a

whole

> > lot

> > > more about *this*, and, I bet you I still am, no matter how many

> > > people are in denial. There's too much 'appeal to authority' on

> > here.

> > > You and Toombaru tend to 'appeal to authority' to justify your

> > > beliefs. This is a common fallacy in logic and should be avoided

> > > unless one wants to fall into a kind of dogmatic, tautological

> > > circular logic. Most religions tend to follow that trend.

Beware.

> > >

> > > I AM is self-evident. You don't need a holy man to confirm it

for

> > you.

> > > You know it automatically; without trying; no effort. Anyone

with

> > any

> > > sincerity can realize that they are, that they exist. That is

> > > self-realization. Subsequently, along with this being-ness is

the

> > > accompanying awareness that one exists. And, that's all there

is;

> > > being-awareness. Everything else is just icing on the cake, so

to

> > > speak. I know, you'll say that some old holy man in Bombay said

> > > something to somebody sometime before he died and, therefore, a

> > school

> > > of thought has been cultivated around him and you must not

betray

> > your

> > > faith and self-investment in this particular belief system and

so

> > on.

> > > But, I am just asking you to look at the evidence. Forget about

the

> > > ideology. Look at the evidence: You are. You are aware. That's

all

> > you

> > > know. The rest is just the myriad " ten thousand things " , the

> > eternal

> > > dance of Shiva, the illusory world of samsara, etc., etc.

> > >

> > > I AM what I AM and that's all that I AM.

> > >

> > > (Popeye had it right).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Yours,

> > >

> > > fuzzie

> >

> > No authority here to appeal to, Fuzz.

> >

> > Nothing to assert, no feeling of ongoing existing

> > or that anything doesn't exist.

> >

> > Nor is there any lack or anything missing or absent.

> >

> > Positive language and assertions about being reach their

> > end and dissolve as never having been.

> >

> > Affirmation and negation don't apply.

> >

> > Thought doesn't add anything nor take anything away.

> >

> > There's no need to affirm something about an imagined iam.

> >

> > Nothing needs to be established or affirmed, as an existing

> > affirmer isn't imagined.

> >

> > Anything I've said about this is merely in the context of

> > ongoing conversations, not to be held as some kind of

> > ultimately true statement about the way things actually are.

> > Same is true of anything you've said.

> >

> > -- Dan

>

>

> Hi, Dan:

>

> Your post is like some kind of disclaimer.

>

> I don't know. Maybe I misunderstood where you were coming from. It's

> just that everybody has a different spin on what a particular guru

> said or did. Do you know what I mean? I was doing laundry down in

the

> Hood this morning and I grabbed a copy of I Am That because I wanted

> to check into it and remember what the Maharaj was saying. I

thought I

> knew, but, I thought maybe I'd double-check it again, just to be

sure.

> Sure enough, I scanned a few chapters and he's saying the same thing

> I'm saying: remain in the I AM and it resolves itself and that's all

> you have to do and anything else is just a matter of preference.

> Ramana said the same thing, too. Now, some people say, no, that

> nothing exists and that Ramana and Nisargadatta didn't really mean

> that and, yes, there are times when they said don't get hung up on

the

> words or the process or making it into a formula and all that kind

of

> thing. Just get into the " sense " of I AM, they would always stress.

> Too many people want to make it into a formula, a doctrine, a theory

> and they want to organize it and start mass marketing it and they

want

> to save the world and be all holy and pious and everything and

Ramana

> and Nisargadatta tended to turn people away from those kinds of ego

> trips. And, that's good. They were right. I love those guys. I'm

right

> with them. I'm saying the same thing, not because they said it,

> necessarily, but, because it is true. You can say, well, nothing is

> true, and, then, here we go again, around and around on some kind of

> circular logical mind warp, but, sooner or later you got to just let

> it go and let it be.

>

> I can't deny it any longer. A person can 'nyeti-nyeti' themselves

> silly. I AM is all there is. It's sweet. Just be. That's all.

>

>

>

> Yours,

>

> fuzzie>>

 

 

 

" I AM is all there is. "

 

My precious, my precious.

 

Mr. smE'agol